discvalidationresearchreport2012_2bb9

7/27/2019 DiSCValidationResearchReport2012_2bb9

1/32

DiSC

ClassicValidation Report


2/32


3/32

VALIDATION REPORT

2008 by Inscape Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Copyright secured in the US and foreign countries.DiSC, Inscape Publishing, and the Inscape logo are registered trademarks of Inscape Publishing, Inc.

DISC

ClassicValidation Report Table of Contents

Introduction to the DiSC Model ......................................................................................................3The Validation Process....................................................................................................................4Reliability .........................................................................................................................................5Validity.............................................................................................................................................7

Construct Validity .........................................................................................................................7Scale Intercorrelations .................................................................................................................7Multidimensional Scaling of the DiSC Scales...............................................................................8Factor Analysis of the DiSC Items..............................................................................................9

Correlations with Other Instruments.............................................................................................9Comparing Scale Scores with Respondent Self-Perceptions.....................................................12Comparing Scale Scores with Respondent Attitudes.................................................................13

Norms and Group Comparisons....................................................................................................17Scoring of the DiSC Profile ..........................................................................................................20

Appendix 1.....................................................................................................................................23Appendix 2.....................................................................................................................................24Appendix 3.....................................................................................................................................27Appendix 4.....................................................................................................................................28Appendix 5.....................................................................................................................................29References ....................................................................................................................................30


4/32

VALIDATION REPORT



5/32

VALIDATION REPORT


3

INTRODUCTION TO THE DISC MODEL

The DiSC assessment is designed to measure traits that are described by the DiSC model

(Marston, 1928). These traits are discussed as styles and are summarized briefly below.Dominance(D): direct, strong-willed, and forceful

Influence (i): sociable, talkative, and lively

Steadiness (S): gentle, accommodating, and even-tempered

Conscientiousness (C): reserved, analytical, and logical

The theoretical DiSC model proposes that the four styles are related to each other in a specificmanner, as shown in the graphic below. In this model, the D and S styles are negativelycorrelated with each other and the i and C styles are negatively correlated with each other.

Adjacent styles (such as the D and i styles) have minimal correlations with each other.

Most respondents find this framework to be very useful in organizing their interpersonal

experiences. Further, the DiSC model has substantial overlap with the Interpersonal Circumplex(Leary, 1957), a model of interpersonal relationships that is well documented in academicpsychological literature and measured by a variety of different instruments (SASB, Benjamin,1996; CLOIT-R, Kiesler, 1987; IMI: IIA, Kiesler & Schmidt, 1991; IAS-R, Wiggins, 1995).

Each of the four DiSC

styles is assessed by a separate scale in the DiSC assessment, asdescribed later in this document. Although some people score highly on only one of these fourscales, most people score high on a combination of the four scales. Further, the styles are viewedas continuous traits, not as dichotomous traits. Therefore, the DiSC styles are not designed to bea typology, in which respondents are described as one of four types.

Interpretive feedback is included with the DiSC

assessment results which, along with theguidance of a facilitator, is designed to help respondents understand the implications of theirscale scores. This feedback is written to create a complete picture of a respondents DiSC scaleby describing the appropriate blend of the four styles, rather than a single type. Theirinterpretive feedback is intended to be a starting point toward better understanding oneself andothers. As demonstrated by research described later in this report, respondents generally findtheir profile feedback to be a very accurate description of themselves and their behavior.Nevertheless, respondents are encouraged to personalize the feedback by deleting orquestioning those parts of the feedback that dont resonate with their self-concept or experience.


6/32

VALIDATION REPORT


4

THE VALIDATION PROCESS

Psychological instruments are used to measure abstract qualities that we cant touch or see.

These are characteristics like intelligence, dominance, or honesty. So how do researchersevaluate these instruments? How do we know whether such tools are actually providing accurateinformation about these characteristics or just generating haphazard feedback that soundsbelievable? Simply put, if an instrument is indeed useful and accurate, it should meet a variety ofdifferent standards that have been established by the scientific community throughout the years.Validation is the process through which researchers assess the quality of a psychologicalinstrument by testing the tool against these different standards. This paper is designed to helpyou understand these different standards and see how Inscapes DiSC instruments performunder examination. Note that the research referenced here has been done on the DiSC Classicinstrument. Because it uses the same response page, this research is equally relevant to theDiSC PPSS instrument.

Validation asks two fundamental questions:

1. How reliable is the tool? That is, researchers ask if an instrument measures in a waythat is consistent and dependable. If the results from a tool contain a lot of randomvariation, it will be deemed less reliable.

2. How valid is the tool? That is, researchers ask if an instrument measures accurately.The more that a tool measures what it proposes to measure, the more valid the tool is.

The following analogy usually helps people understand the importance of reliability and validity.Imagine that you get on your bathroom scale today and weigh yourself. Tomorrow you do the

same thing, only to discover that your weight has dropped by 30%. Although you may bedelighted at first, reality will eventually set in. Your weight didnt change, the scale did. Would youtrust such a scale? No. Its not reliable.

But now lets imagine a second instance in which you weighed yourself twice and both times thescale shows that you weigh about half of what you expected. So although you may have areliable scale, its reliably wrong. The scale doesnt measure what it proposes to measure: yourweight. Its not valid.

In the first instance, the scale is neither reliable nor valid. That is, the scale cant be a validmeasurement of your weight if it fluctuates randomly and unreliably in its results. Therefore, an

instrument cannot be valid if it is not reliable. In the second instance, however, we have a scalethat is reliable but not valid. It does measure consistently (i.e., reliably), but that measurement isnot accurate (i.e., valid.)

Note that no psychometric tool is perfectly reliable or perfectly valid. All psychologicalinstruments are subject to various sources of error. Reliability and validity are seen as matters ofdegree on continuous scales, rather than reliable/unreliable and valid/invalid on dichotomousscales. Consequently, it is more appropriate to ask, How much evidence is there for thereliability/validity of this tool? than Is this tool reliable/valid?


7/32

VALIDATION REPORT


5

RELIABILITY

When we talk of reliability in relation to profiles such as Inscape Publishings DiSC assessments,

then we are referring partly to the tools stability and partly to its internal consistency.

Stability refers to the tools ability to yield the same measurements over a period of time. This isgenerally tested by having the same people fill out the tools questionnaire twice, with a suitabletime interval between the two measurements (the so-called test-retest.) The results are thencompared to determine how strongly they relate to each other (or correlate). If a persons DiSCstyle has remained unchanged, a stable tool should produce results that are quite similarbetween two different administrations. In reality, however, it is almost impossible to obtain perfecttest-retest reliability on any sophisticated psychological test, even if the individual in questiondoes not change on the measured attribute. This is because test results are influenced by avariety of extraneous factors that are unrelated to the characteristics that the test intends to

measure. For instance, someone who is tired during one testing will answer differently than shewill on a second testing when she is well rested. Similarly, another person will respond to a testdifferently depending on the mood he is in. Generally speaking, the longer the interval betweentwo test administrations, the greater the chance that these random variables can artificially lowerthe test-retest reliability of an instrument. In other words, the longer the time period between twotestings, the lower we would expect the test-retest reliability to be.

In practical terms, the stability of DiSC (i.e., test-retest reliability) is measured by asking a groupof respondents to take a DiSC instrument on one occasion and then asking those samerespondents to take the same test again at a later time. If the instrument is stable, the results ofthe instrument shouldnt change much. This stability can be quantified in the form of a reliabilitycoefficient, which is a statistic that is generated by looking at the mathematical relationshipbetween a groups initial scores on an instrument and their subsequent scores. Reliabilitycoefficients range between -1 and +1. The closer that a correlation coefficient is to +1, the morestable the instrument is considered to be. Researchers generally use the following guidelines tohelp them interpret these test-retest reliability coefficients: coefficients above .70 are consideredacceptable, and coefficients above .80 are considered very good.

The four scales ofDiSC Classic have been assessed for their test-retest reliability over varyingperiods of time and the following coefficients were found:

1 week t 5-7 months tt 1 yeartt(10-14 months )

(N*=142) (N*=174) (N*=138)

D: .89 D: .84 D: .79

i: .87 i: .82 i: .80

S: .89 S: .77 S: .76

C: .89 C: .73 C: .71

* N indicates the number of participantst United Kingdom English Version

tt American English Version


8/32

VALIDATION REPORT


6

Daring

Aggressive

Direct

Independent

These results suggest that results produced by DiSC Classic are quite stable over time.Consequently, test takers and test administrators should expect no more than small changeswhen the instrument is taken at different times. As the period between administrations increases,

however, the divergent results of these administrations will become more and more noticeable.

Note that even over very short intervals, an instruments results can show small changes. In fact,it is unlikely that two administrations of a test will yield the exact same results on anysophisticated psychological instrument. When such changes are observed in DiSC, however, theexact elevation of a profile is more likely to change than the basic shape of a profile.Consequently, the fundamental interpretation of the results will usually be the same.

Internal consistency evaluates the degree of correlation among questions that profess tomeasure the same thing. That is, each of the four scales in DiSC

Classic is measured using a

series of different items (i.e., questions in the form of adjectives or

phrases, such as Daring, Independent, Aggressive, or Direct).Researchers recognize that if all of the items on a given scale(e.g., the D scale) are in fact measuring the same thing (e.g.,Dominance), they should all correlate with each other to somedegree. In other words, all of the items on a scale should beconsistent with each other. A statistic called Cronbachs Alpha isusually regarded as the best method of evaluating internalconsistency.

Much like the reliability coefficients described above, CronbachsAlpha expresses the degree of correlation as a specific number, which typically varies between

0.0 and 1.0. If the value of Alpha is 0.0, then there is no relationship among the items/statementson a given scale. On the other hand, if all the statements in a questionnaire are identical, then thevalue of Alpha will be 1.0, which indicates absolute internal consistency. Cronbachs Alpha iscalculated separately for each of the tools scales (i.e., D, i, S, and C.)

The following guidelines are frequently used to evaluate the quality of a scales internal reliability:Alpha values above .70 are generally considered acceptable and satisfactory, Alpha valuesabove .80 are usually considered quite good, and values above .90 are considered to reflectexceptional internal consistency. In fact, Alpha values that are too high may indicate that theitems on a scale are redundant or too similar. In such cases, many of the instruments items mayprovide very little new information about a respondent.

DiSC Classic has repeatedly shown good-to-excellent internal consistency. The developmentsample of the American English version of DiSC Classic demonstrated the following Alphas whenit was revised in 1996 (sample size=812):

D: .92

i: .87

S: .88

C: .85


9/32

VALIDATION REPORT


7

Repeated research since that time has produced similar Alpha coefficients on the US Englishversion, as well as on other language versions that have been developed throughout the world.

Appendix 1 contains a sample of the Alpha coefficients for different language versions ofDiSC

Classic. All of these coefficients are above the .70 cutoff and the majority of them are well abovethis cutoff. Demographic characteristics of the US English 1996 development sample are shownin Appendix 2.

VALIDITY

As already mentioned, validity indicates the degree to which a tool measures that which it hasbeen designed to measure. Assessing the validity of a psychological tool that measures abstractqualities (like intelligence, dominance, or honesty) can be tricky. There are, however, a numberof basic strategies that researchers use to answer the question, How well is this instrumentmeasuring what it says its measuring? The validation strategies that will be discussed here fall

under the heading of construct validity.

Construct Validity

Construct validity examines the validity of a tool on a highly theoretical level. A construct is anabstract idea or concept (such as intelligence, dominance, or honesty) that is used to make senseof our experience. The D scale of DiSC, for example, measures the construct of dominance.This construct of dominance, in turn, is theoretically related to a variety of other constructs. Forinstance, it is reasonable to assume that someone who is very dominant will be rated as moreaggressive by their peers. Thus, dominance and peer ratings of aggressiveness are theoreticallylinked. Consequently, if our measure of dominance has high validity, it should correlate highlywith peer ratings of aggressiveness. This is essentially what researchers do when they examine

construct validity. First, they specify a series of theoretical relationships (e.g., the construct ofdominance is theoretically rated to the constructs of X, Y, and Z). Then they test these theoreticalrelationships empirically to see if the relationships actually exist. If the proposed relationships doexist, the instrument is thought to have higher validity.

Scale Intercorrelations

As you might imagine, there are a variety of different ways to test construct validity. First, we canexamine the validity of an instrument as a whole. Instruments like DiSC propose an underlyingmodel in which the scales within the tool have a specific relationship to each other. Researchersexamine the actual relationship among the scales to see if they reflect the theoretical relationshipproposed by the model.

The DiSC model proposes that adjacent scales (e.g., C/S or C/D) will have weak to moderatecorrelations. That is, these correlations should be considerably smaller than the Alpha reliabilitiesof the individual scales. For example, the correlation between the D and i scales (-.11) should besubstantially lower than the alpha reliability of the D scale (.87). On the other hand,complementary scales (e.g., D/S or C/i) are theoretically opposite and so they should have strongnegative correlations. Table 1 shows data obtained from a 2002 sample of 7,038 respondentswho completed the US English version ofDiSC Classic. The correlations among the D, i, S, andC scales do support this model. That is, strong negative correlations are observed between C and


10/32

VALIDATION REPORT


8

i, and between S and D. Further, weak to moderate correlations are observed between adjacentpairs of scales.

Table 1. Intercorrelations among the DiSC Classic Scales

D i S C

D .87

i -.11 .81

S -.82 -.22 .82

C -.37 -.71 .30 .77

Cronbachs Alpha reliabilities are shown in bold along the diagonal, and the correlation coefficients among scalesare shown within the body of the table. Correlation coefficients range from -1 to +1. A correlation of +1 indicatesthat two variables are perfectly positively correlated such that as one variable increases, the other variableincreases by a proportional amount. A correlation of -1 indicates that two variables are perfectly negativelycorrelated, such that as one variable increases, the other variable decreases by a proportional amount. Acorrelation of 0 indicates that two variables are completely unrelated. The following guidelines can help youinterpret the relative strength of these correlation coefficients (both positive and negative): very weak correlationsrange from 0.0 to .2, weak correlations range from .2 to .4, moderate correlations range from .4 to .6, strongcorrelations range from .6 to .8, and very strong correlations range from .8 to 1.0.

Multidimensional Scaling of the DiSC Scales

A statistical technique called multidimensional scaling also adds support to the DiSC model. Thistechnique has two advantages. First, it allows for a visual inspection of relationships among thefour scales. Second, this technique allows researchers to look at all of the scales simultaneously.To obtain a large sample size, 45,588 respondents who had taken the online DiSC profile wereused in this analysis. In Figure 1, scales that are closer together have a stronger positiverelationship. Scales that are farther apart are more dissimilar.

As can be seen in Figure 1, scales are arranged in a way that is expected by the DiSC model. Allscales are closest to the scales that are theoretically adjacent to them in the DiSC model. Further,all scales are farthest from scales that are theoretically opposite them in the DiSC model.Consequently, this analysis adds strong support for the DiSC model and the ability ofDiSCClassic to measure that model.

Figure 1. Multidimensional Scaling Solution forthe DiSC Classic Scales


11/32

VALIDATION REPORT


9

Factor Analysis of the DiSC Items

Another method used to assess the validity ofDiSC Classic is factor analysis. Unlike the

correlational analysis and multidimensional scaling analysis described above, the factor analysisdescribed here was used to examine the DiSC instrument at the level of items rather than at thelevel of scales.

Generally speaking, factor analysis helps researchers understand which items are highlycorrelated and thus group together to form a scale. This statistical technique takes into accountthe correlations among all of the items within a test and identifies independent factors (ordimensions) that explain those correlations. The DiSC model proposes that two primary factors(or dimensions) underlie the four DiSC scales. If this model is sufficiently measured by DiSCClassic, a factor analysis should identify two independent dimensions. Further, items on the i andC scales should correlate highly with one factor and items on the D and S scales should correlatehighly with the other factor. In summary, factor analysis was used to confirm: 1) the two-dimensional structure of the DiSC model as measured by DiSC Classic; and 2) confirm that itemswere assigned to the appropriate scale.

The results of a factor analysis on 812 participants in the DiSC Classic developmental sampledemonstrated that for each of the DiSC scales, items grouped together in the expected fashion.Two clear factors emerged in the analysis that reflected the two dimensions proposed in theDiSC model (i.e., one factor with D and S items and one factor with i and C items). In addition,the vast majority of the DiSC items were most strongly correlated with their expected factor. In asubsequent analysis, using a sample size of 45,588, the 112 DiSC items were submitted to factoranalysis using a Varimax rotation. A two-factor solution was specified. In the rotated solution,over 90% of the items loaded most highly on the appropriate factor. That is, D and S items loaded

most highly on the first factor and I and C items loaded most highly on the second factor. Theseresults support the appropriateness of the DiSC Classic items to measure the two dimensionswithin the DiSC model.

Correlations with Other Instruments

When validating an instrument, test developers recognize that it is important to understand therelationship that a given instrument (e.g., DiSC) has with other psychological tools in the field. Inparticular, researchers identify instruments that measure constructs (such as aggressiveness,playfulness, or emotional stability) that are theoretically related to constructs measured by theinstrument in question (such as Dominance, Influence, or Steadiness.) For instance, the Influencescale of DiSC is theoretically related to the construct of extraversion. Consequently, the Influencescale should correlate highly with scales on other tools that measure extraversion. This type ofconstruct validity is often called convergent validity.

The 16PFOne of the instruments with which DiSC has been correlated is the Cattell 16 Personality FactorQuestionnaire (16PF). This instrument was developed by Raymond Cattell in the 1940s using alargely factor analytic methodology. It proposes to measure 16 traits that represent the majordimensions of differences within human personality. These traits describe a person's individual


12/32

VALIDATION REPORT


10

style of perceiving, thinking, and acting in a wide variety of situations over a relatively extendedperiod of time.

For the purposes of DiSC validation, we are only interested in those scales that are theoreticallyrelated to the constructs measured by DiSC. A group of 103 participants were asked to take boththe DiSC instrument and the 16PF. (The DiSC instrument used was the predecessor to thecurrent DiSC Classic.) The scales of the two instruments were then correlated. The followingparagraphs describe a series of hypothesized correlations based on the theoretical DiSC model,along with the empirical support for these hypotheses.

The Dominance scale of the 16PF should be positively correlated with the D scale ofDiSC and negatively correlated with the S scale of DiSC. Analyses confirmed that theDominance scale of the 16PF was strongly and positively correlated with the D scale of theDiSC instrument (r= .62) and strongly and negatively correlated with the S scale (r= -.52).

The Liveliness scale of the 16PF should be positively correlated with the i scale of theDiSC instrument. Data supports this hypothesis and shows a strong positive relationshipbetween these two scales (r= .61). The Liveliness scale also demonstrated a moderatenegative correlation with the C scale of DiSC (r= -.45).

The Sensitivity scale of the 16PF measures people on a continuum that ranges fromutilitarian, unsentimental, and tough-minded on the low end to sensitive, sentimental, andtender-minded on the high end. This sensitivity construct is touched upon in the D and Sscales of DiSC, but only indirectly. Therefore, the D scale of DiSC should show a negativebut moderate correlation with the Sensitivity scale and the S scale should show a positive

but moderate relationship. The data support this hypothesis. The D scale demonstrated anegative and moderate, but statistically significant relationship with the Sensitivity scale.The S scale showed a positive correlation with the Sensitivity scale, although thisrelationship was not statistically significant.

The Rule Consciousness scale of the 16PF measures people on a continuum thatranges from self-indulgent and rule-disregarding on the low end to dutiful and rule-conscious on the high end. This rule-consciousness construct is measured indirectly by theC scale of DiSC, and so we would expect a positive, but moderate relationship betweenthese two scales. The data indicate a small but statistically significant relationship betweenthe C scale of DiSC and the Rule Consciousness scale of the 16PF.

The Social Boldness scale of the 16PF measures people on a continuum that rangesfrom shy and threat-sensitive on the low end to bold and adventurous on the high end.From a theoretical perspective, this Social Boldness scales should correlate moderatelywith each of the four DiSC scales. The S and C scales should show moderate negativecorrelations and the D and i scales should show moderate positive relationships. The datasupport three of these four hypothesized correlations. The S and C scales both showednegative, statistically significant correlations with this scale. In addition, the i scale showeda positive, statistically significant correlation with the scale. Although the D scale did have


13/32

VALIDATION REPORT


11

a positive correlation with the Social Boldness scale as expected, this correlation wassmaller than theorized.

The Privateness scale of the 16PF measures people on a continuum that ranges fromforthright and open on the low end to discreet and non-disclosing on the high end. TheDiSC scales touch indirectly on this construct. Specifically, we would expect that the i scaleof DiSC would have a negative, but moderate relationship with this scale. Further, wewould expect that the C scale would have a positive, but moderate relationship withprivateness. The data support these hypotheses. The i scale showed a moderatelynegative correlation with the Privateness scale that was statistically significant. As well,the C scale showed a moderately positive correlation with the Privateness scale that wasstatistically significant.

The MBTI

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

(MBTI) is a personality inventory based on the theoretical workof Carl Jung. It proposes to measure an individuals stable, personal preferences on four primaryscales (i.e., Introversion/Extraversion, Sensing/Intuition, Thinking/Feeling, andJudging/Perceiving). Based on the theoretical DiSC model, only one of the MBTI scales (i.e.,Introversion/Extraversion) was proposed to have a strong relationship with the scales of the DiSCprofile. Another MBTI scale (i.e., Thinking/Feeling), however, was expected to have moderate orweak relationship with the scales of the DiSC profile. To examine the relationship between thesetwo instruments, 103 people were asked to take both the MBTI and DiSC profile. (The DiSCinstrument used was the predecessor to the current DiSC Classic.) The following paragraphsdescribe the research hypotheses in more detail and document the results that were found.

The Introversion/Extraversion scale (I/E) of the MBTI proposes to measure the sourceof ones personal energy. Introverts (i.e., those who score low on this scale) are thought toderive their energy from reflecting on an inner world of information, ideas, or concepts.People who receive low scores on the I/E scale are often described as contained,reflective, or quiet. These same adjectives are frequently used to describe individuals whoscore highly on the C scale of the DiSC profile. Consequently, we should expect anegative correlation between these two scales. On the other hand, Extraverts (i.e., thosewho score highly on this scale) are thought to derive their energy from interaction with theouter world of people or things. People who score highly on this scale are often describedas expressive, gregarious, or enthusiastic. These same adjectives are often also used todescribe people who score highly on the i scale of the DiSC profile. Consequently, these

two scales should be positively correlated. The data support these hypotheses. The i scaleof the DiSC profile correlated strongly and positively (r=.65) with the I/E scale. The C scaledemonstrated a negative correlation with the I/E scale (r=-.35), although this correlationwas more moderate in strength. Both correlations were statistically significant.

The Thinking/Feeling scale (T/F) of the MBTI proposes to measure the method in whicha person makes decisions or draws conclusions. Those who make decisions based onobjective, logical analysis are described as Thinking. This is indicated by a low score onthe T/F scale. Similarly, the D and C styles within the DiSC model are also proposed tomake frequent decisions based on these criteria. Consequently, we would expect weak-to-


14/32

VALIDATION REPORT


12

moderate negative correlations between the T/F scale and both the D and C scales of theDiSC profile. Those who make decisions based on personal values for the purpose ofcreating harmony are described as Feeling. This is indicated by a high score on the T/F

scale. In the DiSC model, the i and S styles are also proposed to make frequent decisionsbased on these criteria. Therefore, we would expect to see weak-to-moderate positivecorrelations between the T/F scale and both the i and S scales of the DiSC profile. Theresults of the data analysis show that the T/F scale did, in fact, have a negative correlationwith the D scale, but had a slightly positive correlation with the C scale. (This correlation,however, was not statistically significant). The i and S scales of the DiSC profile, however,did demonstrate the expected positive correlations with the T/F scale.

Comparing Scale Scores with Respondent Self-Perceptions

The DiSC assessment includes not only scale scores, but also narrative feedback designed tohelp respondents interpret those scale scores and understand the implications of their results. Formore than 35 years, anecdotal evidence has suggested that the feedback within the DiSC reportresonates with the vast majority of DiSC assessment takers, who find it to be an accuratedescription of themselves. Psychologists, however, recognize that respondents will often readinto their assessment results and agree with a very broad range of scale interpretations,particularly if they are positive (i.e., the Forer effect (Forer, 1949)). Consequently, it is necessaryto empirically evaluate how well psychological scales and the interpretation of those scalesrepresent the characteristics of the respondent.

A group of 3,398 participants were asked to take the DiSC assessment. They then read fourparagraphs (such as the one below), and after reading each one they rated how well eachparagraph described them on a seven-point scale ranging from Doesnt describe me at all (1) to

Describes me very well (7). Each of the four paragraphs reflected one of the four DiSC styles.

Sample Paragraph: Describing the D Style

My determination and insistence keeps things moving and helpsme get real results. Im fairly direct and candid and may even beseen as blunt by others. I dont usually sugarcoat my opinions, andIm straightforward and frank with my feedback even if its not whatthe other person wants to hear. I can also come across asdominant or forceful when I have a clear sense of how thingsshould be. I may become a little aggressive, persistent, or even

demanding if I know it will get the job done.(All four paragraphs used in this research project are included in Appendix 3).

Responses to the four paragraphs were correlated with the four DiSC scales, as shown inparentheses on Table 2. Response bias, such as social desirability or responding toward themiddle, can distort the accuracy of participant paragraph ratings. For instance, a participant whowants to appear in a favorable light may give high ratings to all paragraphs. In such a case, herratings are artificially inflated by the response bias of social desirability, and consequently, herresponses are a less accurate reflection of her true behavior and tendencies. To control for


15/32

VALIDATION REPORT


13

response bias, participant responses were ipsatized (this process is described beneath Table 2).Therefore, ipsatized ratings reflect the participants relative ratings of the paragraphs.Correlations between DiSC scale scores and ipsatized paragraph responses are also shown in

Table 2.

The correlations in Table 2 add support for the ability of the DiSC scales to measure theconstructs proposed by DiSC. Each scale demonstrated its strongest positive correlation with theappropriate paragraph (e.g., the D scale had its strongest positive correlation with the Dparagraph). Further, each scale demonstrated its strongest negative correlation with theappropriate paragraph as predicted by the DiSC model (e.g., the D scale had its strongestnegative correlation with the S scale). Finally, each scale had relatively small correlations (


16/32

VALIDATION REPORT


14

sales priorities. This project was also used to explore how various management or sales prioritiesrelate to each other.

The DiSC model proposes a specific theoretical relationship among the DiSC scales such thattwo dimensions explain the correlations of the scales. The vertical dimension is frequently calledthe Active-Reflective dimension, and the horizontal dimension is frequently called theQuestioning-Accepting dimension. In this research project, it was hypothesized that therelationship among various management or sales priorities would also be explained by thistheoretical model. Further, it was expected that DiSC scales would relate to these priorities in amanner predicted by the DiSC model below.

In Study 1, managers (N=447) were asked to take the DiSC assessment. They were thenpresented with a series of management tasks (e.g., Setting high expectations, Taking time tolisten to peoples concerns and fears) and asked to rate how important each task was to them asa manager on a scale of 1 through 5, ranging from not at all important (1) to crucially important(5). Task ratings were ipsatized to adjust for response sets such as social desirability (asdescribed in the section of this report called Comparing Scale Scores to Respondent Self-Perceptions). Consequently, task ratings represented the relative priorities for each manager.

The twenty-eight task ratings and four DiSC scales were then submitted to a multidimensionalscaling (MDS) analysis, which allows researchers to create a visual map of the relationshipamong a large group of variables. In Figure 2, variables that are closer together are more similar.Variables that are farther apart are more dissimilar. The theoretical DiSC model has been placedin the center of the MDS map to aid with interpretation.


17/32

VALIDATION REPORT


15

Figure 2. MDS analysis results for DiSC

scales and management task ratings.Note that this MDS solution was rotated to correspond to the traditional presentation of DiSC. The task labels in this figure areparaphrases of the original items. This was done to create a presentation that was more readable and less cluttered. The full length tasklabels are included in Appendix 4. The stress value associated with the above solution was .23. This suggests that two dimensions areadequate to explain the relationships among the variables, but the third dimension may be useful.

Examining Figure 2, the management tasks appear to support the theorized DiSC dimensions.Generally speaking, the tasks in the upper-left-hand corner are both active and questioning (e.g.,Setting high expectations, Pushing myself and others). This is where the D scale also falls.The i scale falls in the upper-right-hand corner, where the tasks are more active and accepting(e.g., Creating enthusiasm, Celebrating victories). The tasks in the lower-right-hand corner aregenerally more reflective or moderate-paced as well as accepting (e.g., Showing patience formistakes, Giving people time to adjust to changes). This is where the S scale falls.

The C scale tends toward the lower-left-hand corner, where the tasks are generally morequestioning and reflective (e.g., Prioritizing accuracy, Ensuring that decisions are made onlogical analysis). It was expected that the S scale would fall a little farther to the right on the mapand the C scale would fall a little farther to the left. But overall, the placement of the managementtasks and DiSC scales support the theoretical dimensions hypothesized to underlie DiSC, aswell as the DiSC scales ability to measure those dimensions.


18/32

VALIDATION REPORT


16

In Study 2, participants with professional sales experience (N=696) were asked to take the DiSCassessment. They were then presented with fourteen sales tasks related to customer interactions(e.g., Listening patiently and warmly to the customers needs, Explaining the quality of your

product/service) and asked to rate how important each task was to them when they work with acustomer on a scale of 1 through 5, ranging from Not at all important (1) to Crucially important(5). Task ratings were ipsatized to adjust for response sets such as social desirability (asdescribed in the section of this report called Comparing Scale Scores with Respondent Self-Perceptions). Consequently, task ratings represented the relative priorities for each salesperson.

The task ratings and DiSC scale scores were then submitted to an MDS analysis. In Figure 3,variables that are closer together are more similar. Variables that are farther apart are moredissimilar. The theoretical DiSC model has been placed in the center of the MDS map to aid withinterpretation.

Figure 3. MDS analysis results for DiSC scales and sales task ratings.

Note that this MDS solution was rotated to correspond to the traditional presentation of DiSC. The stress value associated withthe above solution was .24. This suggests that two dimensions are adequate to explain the relationships among the variables, butthe third dimension may be useful.


19/32

VALIDATION REPORT


17

The results from Study 2, shown in Figure 3, again support the dimensions theorized to underliethe four DiSC scales. The D scale is located in the upper-left-hand corner of the MDS map.Because people who score high on this scale have a fast pace, they are hypothesized to care

less about details or specifics and more about bottom-line results. And because these samepeople are more questioning or skeptical by nature, they are often hypothesized to skip socialniceties and, again, focus their efforts on results. The MDS map supports these hypotheses,indicating that the D scale is most highly related to tasks such as showing confidence, helping thecustomers bottom line, and affecting the customers success.

The i scale is located in the upper-right-hand corner and is closest to tasks such as creatingenthusiasm and having fun with the customer. Both of these tasks reflect an active pace and amore accepting nature. The S scale is located in the lower-right-hand corner. This scale ishypothesized to combine an accepting nature with a slower, more reflective pace. The two tasksclosest to this scale support this hypothesis. The S scale is close to the task, Showing that youre

thorough and careful, which reflects the cautious, slower paced aspects of this scale. The Sscale is also close to the task, Showing the customer that you empathize with his/her needs andconcerns, which reflects a more accepting nature. A cluster of tasks fall between the i and Sscales, all of which reflect an accepting, people-focused disposition.

The C scale falls in the lower-left-hand corner of the MDS map. The tasks that fall in this regionreflect an assumption that the customer is careful, detail-oriented, and questioning, such asShowing that you can back up your claims with evidence and Backing up the quality of yourproduct with specific information. As with Study 1, the overall results of Study 2 provide strongsupport for the theoretical dimensions hypothesized to underlie DiSC, as well as the DiSC scalesability to measure those dimensions.

NORMS AND GROUP COMPARISONS

Norms are an important concept in psychological testing. They allow you to compare your resultson a test to the average person within a given population (e.g., your country, your age group, youroccupational group.) And from this, norms allow us to understand what scores should beconsidered average, what scores should be considered high, and what scores should beconsidered low. This section will take a brief look at the use and relevance of norms on the DiSCprofile.

When people take a psychological test, they receive what is called a raw score. This usuallyinvolves adding the number of items answered in a certain way and/or subtracting the number ofitems that are answered in a different way. For example, Graph III raw scores on DiSC Classicare derived by adding the number of a participants most responses and subtracting the numberof a participants least responses. The raw score on each DiSC scale that ranges from roughly-28 to 28 on Graph III of the profile. This range may be smaller depending on the languageversion of the instrument (see Scoring of the DiSC Profile for more information.) Test designersneed some way, however, to interpret the meaning of that raw score. That is, what does a scoreof 9 mean in practical terms? Is it high? Is it low? Consequently, tests are "referenced" so thattest designers can make sense of raw scores and attach some practical meaning to the results.


20/32

VALIDATION REPORT


18

There are a variety of ways to reference a test. DiSC is "norm-referenced," which means that aperson's raw scores (ranging from roughly -28 to 28) are interpreted relative to how everyoneelse in the population scores on that scale. This is a very common way to reference a

psychological instrument. So, for example, if the average person in a population receives a rawscore of -6 on a scale, a raw score of +5 may be considered quite high.

Because DiSC Classic is norm-referenced and scores derive their meaning, in part, by comparingan individuals scores to those within a population, it is important that test results are compared tothe appropriate population. If a profile is to be used to allow the average German to compareherself/himself with other Germans, then she/he should take a version ofDiSC Classic that wasnormed and validated on a population of Germans. That is, the test must be validated using arepresentative sample of the German population (also called a German norm-group). DiSCClassic is published in a wide variety of different languages. Each language version of the profilehas been validated using a representative sample from a given country or region. Consequently,

not only do these different versions of the profile measure DiSC using a different language, theyalso use a different population of respondents. The three tables below show how Graph IIIappears in three different language versions ofDiSC Classic. Notice that the placement of rawscores changes on the different versions. For example, a raw score of 3 on the D scale will placea person in Segment 4 of the German version, Segment 5 of the Danish version, and Segment 6of the American English version.

Denmark Germany USA

One can easily see the differences among the three graphs. These differences underscore theimportance of using a DiSC instrument that was normed on a population relevant to therespondents in your group. As mentioned previously, raw scores on the D scale are plotted


21/32

VALIDATION REPORT


19

differently on each of the three graphs. Consequently, the behaviors that are perceived asDominant in one culture may be seen differently in another culture. If we were to measure apersons DiSC style using a language version ofDiSC Classic that was not developed on the

appropriate norm group, the accuracy of measurement and feedback is likely to go down.

Cross-cultural comparisons using the DiSC profile, however, are difficult because profile normdifferences could be due to number of different factors. For instance, differences in profile level orshape can be due to differences in the population (e.g., Danish citizens could actually have ahigher average level of Dominance in their behavior and emotion than Americans.) It is equallylikely, however, that differences between cultures on thegraphs are due to the social desirability of the wordsinvolved in the measurement. That is, even if we attempt touse the same translated word in both countries (andsometimes the words themselves change), these words will

have slightly different flavors in each country. The words weuse to measure Dominance, for instance, may be moresocially desirable in Denmark compared to the words usedto measure that scale in the US, even if the two populationsactually have the same average level of Dominance.Consequently, it might be tempting to conclude that theUnited States has fewer high-D individuals than Denmark,even though this is only one of many possible explanationsfor the differences in profile norms.

When, however, comparisons are made among cultural

groups within the same larger population (using the samelanguage version of the DiSC profile), few significant resultsare found. For example, comparisons of ethnic groupswithin the US show that there are no meaningful differencesamong the traditionally defined ethnic groups (i.e., Asian

American, African American, Caucasian, Hispanic, or Native American.) In statistical terms, thepercent of variance accounted for race (i.e., eta squared) in the US population on any given DiSCstyle is well below 1%. What does this mean in practical terms? Knowing a persons ethnicclassification will tell you next to nothing about their DiSC style.

In addition, internal reliability coefficients were calculated for homogeneous samples of African

Americans, Asian Americans, Caucasian Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Native Americansand are included in Appendix 5. Results show that Alpha coefficients were well above .70 for allscales across all ethic groups. This suggests that the internal consistency of the DiSC scales wasappropriately high within each of these groups.

Analyses have also been performed to examine the relationship between education level and theDiSC

scales. Internal reliability coefficients were calculated for groups of participants with

different levels of education. As shown in Appendix 5, the reliability for all four DiSC scales wasappropriately high within each educational group.

SOCIAL DESIRABILITY

If you had to describe yourself with

one of the two words below, whichone would you choose?

EagerImpatient

The two words can be used todescribe the same thing, but mostpeople would consider the wordImpatient as less desirable thanEager.


22/32

VALIDATION REPORT


20

Similarly, peoples DiSC patterns do not appear to be significantly related to their age. In the USEnglish version, age differences appear to be largest on the i scale of the DiSC profile, but evenon this scale those differences are small. A data analysis of 7,038 respondents to the US English

version showed that older respondents had slightly lower scores on the i scale, but these agedifferences accounted for only about 1% of the variation in scores. Differences on the otherscales were substantially smaller. Although this pattern of results does change slightly fromculture to culture, research suggests that sizable and important age-related differences on DiSCClassic are rare across all language versions. Even the largest age-related differences areusually less than one segment apart.

Gender-related differences on DiSC Classic have also been explored. Women and men do seemto show small but noticeable group differences on two of the four DiSC scales in the US Englishversion. Using the data set described above, women showed higher scores than men on the Sscale and men showed higher scores than women on the D scale. In both cases, however,

gender differences were less than one segment score and accounted for less than 3% of thevariation in DiSC scores. Although men and women differ as a group on the D and S scales,these results suggest that a persons gender will tell you very little about their expected DiSCprofile. Other analyses showed that although women scored higher than men on the i scale, thisdifference was not practically meaningful. In addition, women and men, on average, receivedalmost identical scores on the C scale. This general pattern of gender-related results is similaracross a variety of different language versions ofDiSC Classic (e.g., German, Danish, UKEnglish), although slight variations are sometimes observed. Internal reliability coefficients werecalculated separately for females and males across all four DiSC scales. As shown in Appendix5, reliability coefficients were well above .70 for both genders across all scales.

For reference purposes, Appendix 2 provides a sample of the demographic makeup of threedifferent DiSC Classic language versions (US English, UK English, and German). Thedemographics within these samples are designed to provide a rough reflection of the actualdemographics within the larger population. Subsequent analyses on larger datasets support thevalidity and reliability that were found in these developmental samples. For instance, a sample ofover 7000 respondents took the US English version ofDiSC Classic. These respondents wereroughly equivalent to the developmental sample on all major demographic categories. Asmentioned above, analyses of this newer, larger sample provide continued support for thereliability and validity of the instrument.

SCORING OF THE DISC PROFILE

DiSC Classic uses a measurement technique that is referred to as forced-choice. Within DiSCClassic, this forced-choice format means that respondents are presented with four adjectives (orphrases in some language versions) and asked to choose one that is most like them and one thatis least like them. The primary advantage of this format is that it reduces social desirability ofresponding. Social scientists have long recognized that when most people take a psychologicalinstrument, they tend to respond in a way that makes them look good. This isnt necessarily aconscious attempt to deceive the instrument or test administrator. Rather, it is a natural desire to


23/32

VALIDATION REPORT


21

think about oneself and present oneself in the most positive light. This is true of mostpsychologically healthy adults, across almost all cultures. The forced-choice format reduces theinfluence of this tendency by forcing them to choose only one of many socially desirable choices.

For instance, the first response box in the US English version ofDiSC Classic asks people tochoose between the words enthusiastic, daring, diplomatic, and satisfied. Each of these words isa positive quality and therefore socially desirable. DiSC respondents, however, can only chooseone that is most like them. Further, they also are forced to choose one that is least like them.Consequently, they cannot choose every positive quality, but rather must choose their relativehighs and lows.

After people have completed 28 forced-choice boxes,their 28 most responses are charted on Graph I. Notethat this graph may not be shown if the assessmentwas taken electronically. On Graph I, if a person has

a high score on a given DiSC scale, this means thatthe person endorsed many items that belonged tothat scale as being most like them. For instance, ahigh score on the D scale of Graph I means that aperson endorsed many D items (e.g., daring,determined, outspoken) as most like him/her.

On the other hand, the individuals 28 leastresponses are inverted and then charted on Graph II.If a person has a high score on a given DiSC scaleof Graph II, this means that the person did not

endorse many items that belong to that scale as leastlike them. For instance, a high score on the D scaleof Graph II means that a person endorsed very few Ditems as least like them. Conversely, that sameperson may have a low score on the S scale ofGraph II, which means that he endorsed many Sitems as least like him. Ultimately, Graphs I and IIreflect two different methods of measuring DiSC. Theresults of these two methods are combined to formGraph III, which is shown to be the most reliablemeasurement of DiSC.

Most people who have hand-scored a paper andpencil version ofDiSC Classic have probably noticedthat some DiSC items have been assigned thesymbol of N and are not included in the scoring of apersons DiSC profile. In some cases, it is a mostresponse that is not scored and in some cases, it is aleast response that is not scored. In either case, N responses are not scored because they arenot as accurate in their ability to measure the DiSC model as the other items in the profile. Forinstance, in the US English version ofDiSC Classic, data analyses showed that a most

MoreMOST

Answers=

HigherSegment

Score

Graph I

MoreLEAST

Answers=

LowerSegment

Score

Graph II


24/32

VALIDATION REPORT


22

response to the word observant was a good measure of the C scale, but a least response tothat same word was not a good enough measure within the DiSC model. Consequently, a mostresponse to observant is scored, but a least response is not scored (and is treated as an N-

response.)

N-responses also have implications for the range of raw scores on the DiSC Graphs. Forexample, if you look at the D scale on Graph III of the US English version, you will see that therange of raw scores goes from -27 to +27. On the i scale, however, the raw scores range from -26 to +28. This discrepancy occurs because the D scale and i scales have a differentarrangement of N-responses. More specifically, the D scale has one most response that is notscored and so the highest possible score on the D scale is +27 (i.e., 28 most responses minusthe one N-response that is not scored). The i scale, however, has no most responses that arenot scored and consequently, the highest possible score is +28.


25/32

VALIDATION REPORT


23

APPENDIX 1

Sample of Alpha coefficients for different language versions of the DiSC profile*:

Language D i S CSample

Size

Chinese (China) .90 .91 .89 .89 807

Danish .89 .79 .81 .81 1912

English (US) .92 .87 .88 .85 812

English (Australian) .87 .84 .77 .82 406

English (UK) .89 .91 .85 .87 743

Estonian .78 .84 .81 .82 908

Finnish .86 .84 .77 .87 805

German .90 .92 .82 .91 1111

Hungarian .87 .83 .81 .82 501

Italian .84 .84 .77 .83 704

Japanese .90 .87 .84 .85 813

Korean .83 .85 .76 .83 1009

Latvian .76 .73 .77 .71 1041

Lithuanian .78 .74 .75 .70 852

Norwegian .87 .83 .80 .83 823

Portuguese (Europe) .87 .91 .87 .86 1100

Spanish (Mexico) .83 .81 .85 .79 901

Spanish (Chile, Columbia) .79 .74 .76 .74 412

Swedish .80 .79 .72 .77 1007

Turkish .75 .75 .77 .72 932

* Results based on development sample of the most recent version of each language version.


26/32

VALIDATION REPORT


24

APPENDIX 2

Demographic characteristics of the development samples of the various language versions of

DiSC

Classic:

US English

Gender: Male 45%Female 55%

Education: High school diploma or less 28%Some post-secondary 27%College graduate 30%Graduate or professional degree 15%

Employment: General clerical 8%Secretarial/administrative 7%

Sales 8%Technical 7%Warehouse or general labor 6%Supervisory 6%Mid-level management 10%Executive 4%Professional 25%Other 22%

Heritage: African-American 10%Asian-Pacific 2%Caucasian 80%Hispanic 5%Native American 2%Other 2%

Total Sample size = 812


27/32

VALIDATION REPORT


25

Appendix 2 (continued)

United Kingdom English

Gender Male 57%Female 43%

Age 18-25 18%26-35 31%36-45 26%46-55 19%56 and older 6%

Heritage British 73%Irish 21%

Asian 3%European (EU National) other than 1%British or IrishEuropean (non-EU National) 1%Other 2%

Education Some secondary education 8%GCSE/O Level or equivalent 20%A Level or equivalent 14%Technical college or equivalent 13%HNC/HND or equivalent 11%University graduate or equivalent 25%University post-graduate or equivalent 9%

Employment Secretarial/Clerical 8%Executive 5%Mid-Level Management 28%Supervisory 10%Professional 17%Mechanical/Technical 4%Skilled Trades 1%Production Worker 1%Customer Service 7%Sales/Marketing 4%Health Care Worker 4%Teacher/Educator 3%Homemaker 1%

Other 9%

Location Ireland 22%U.K. 78%

Total Sample Size = 743


28/32

VALIDATION REPORT


26

Appendix 2 (continued)

German

Gender Male 50%Female 50%

Age 16-18 1%19-25 18%26-40 47%41-55 28%56-65 4%65+ 1%Missing 2%

Education No school 1%Main school 22%Secondary leading to intermediate 29%Grammar school 44%Missing 5%

Job Status Head of Department 6%Worker/mechanic 6%Civil servant 4%Self employed 6%

Company management 4%Unskilled worker 1%Clerical services 2%Mid-level management 5%Educator/social worker 3%Official in charge 12%Engineering 7%Sales 10%Industrial classification 23%Missing 11%

Heritage German 72%

Swiss 11%Austrian 11%Other 3%Missing 4%

Total Sample Size = 1070


29/32

VALIDATION REPORT


27

APPENDIX 3

Paragraphs used as part of DiSC validation process:

The paragraphs below were used as part of validation research that is described in theComparing Scale Scores with Respondent Self-Perceptions section of this document.

Paragraph describing the D StyleMy determination and insistence keeps things moving and helps me get real results.Im fairly direct and candid and may even be seen as blunt by others. I dont usuallysugarcoat my opinions, and Im straightforward and frank with my feedback even if itsnot what the other person wants to hear. I can also come across as dominant orforceful when I have a clear sense of how things should be. I may become a littleaggressive, persistent, or even demanding if I know it will get the job done.

Paragraph describing the i StyleI tend to be a very outgoing and sociable person. I usually come across as talkativeand lively, and can help create an energetic, high-spirited environment. I enjoymeeting new people, and even those whove just met me can usually sense that Imenthusiastic and optimistic. I can be the life of the party, and I often have a playfulapproach to life.

Paragraph describing the S StyleI tend to be very patient with other people and usually come across as warm and soft-spoken. When people first meet me, they can usually sense that Im gentle,welcoming, and empathic. I tend to be a little bit sensitive, and will go out of my way tomake sure other people are happy. I prefer a harmonious environment whereeveryone gets along, and consequently, Id rather keep my opinions to myself thanhurt someones feelings.

Paragraph describing the C StyleI tend to be reserved and analytical, and I focus on logic and accuracy. I choose mywords carefully and can come across as a little impersonal if you dont know me well.When Im working on a project, Im extremely careful to ensure that I get things right.Im often a little bit skeptical of people who are highly emotional or enthusiastic.Similarly, I prefer to have my privacy and dont show a lot of emotion with people that Idont know very well. As a consequence, some people may read me as detached or

unexpressive.


30/32

VALIDATION REPORT


28

APPENDIX 4

Items used in management research:

The items below were used as part of validation research that is described in Study 1 in thesection Comparing Scale Scores with Participant Attitudes of this document.

1 Constantly pushing myself and others toward results

2 Praising people for good work

3 Checking in with people to make sure they are doing ok

4 Emphasizing the need for quality work

5 Maintaining forward momentum on my team

6 Providing feedback in a way that's warm and understanding

7 Creating a stable work environment

8 Challenging ideas that don't make sense to me

9 Creating a sense of urgency in the team10 Celebrating group victories

11 Letting people know that I am there to help them out whenever they need it12 Ensuring that decisions are based on logical analysis

13 Creating goals for the team that are inspiring

14 Building a sense of collaboration

15 Questioning employees actions when they don't seem logical to me

16 Taking time to listen to people's concerns and fears

17 Providing people with clear guidelines for doing their work

18 Letting people know when they aren't performing up to my standards

19 Setting high expectations

20 Creating enthusiasm in the team21 Showing patience with people's mistakes

22 Making accuracy a top priority23 Encouraging the team to maintain an energetic pace

24 Making sure that everyone's getting along

25 Questioning procedures or practices that aren't efficient

26 Giving people time to adjust to changes

27 Encouraging people to take risks

28 Separating out emotions from facts when making decisions


31/32

VALIDATION REPORT


29

APPENDIX 5

Alpha coefficients for the DiSC scales across various demographic groups:

Alpha Coefficients by Scale

N* D i S C

Ethnic Classification

African American 2410 .84 .80 .79 .74

Asian American 926 .86 .80 .82 .75

Caucasian American 23790 .88 .84 .82 .79

Hispanic American 1509 .86 .78 .79 .74

Native American 400 .84 .81 .80 .75

Education

Graduate/Professional Degree 8139 .87 .84 .81 .81

College Graduate 12826 .87 .84 .82 .79

Some College 6069 .87 .81 .81 .76

Technical/Trade School 1186 .87 .78 .81 .73

High School Graduate 2166 .87 .77 .81 .73

Some High School 175 .83 .78 .79 .76

Gender

Female 15535 .87 .83 .82 .79

Male 15025 .87 .83 .80 .79

* N indicates sample size


32/32

VALIDATION REPORT

REFERENCES

Benjamin, L. S. (1996). A clinician-friendly version of the Interpersonal Circumplex: Structural

Analysis of Social Behavior (SASB). Journal of Personality Assessment, 66, 248-266.

Forer, B. R. (1949). The fallacy of personal validation: a classroom demonstration of gullibility.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44, 118-123.

Kiesler, D. J. (1987). The Check List of Interpersonal TransactionsRevised (CLOIT-R).Richmond, VA: Virginia Commonwealth University.

Kiesler, D. J., & Schmidt, J. A. (1991). The Impact Message Inventory: Form IIA Octant ScaleVersion. Richmond, VA: Virginia Commonwealth University.

Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal Diagnosis of Personality. New York: Ronald Press.

Marston, W. M. (1928). The Emotions of Normal People. New York: Harcourt Brace andCompany.

Wiggins, J. S. (1995). Interpersonal Adjective Scales: Professional Manual. Odessa, FL:Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

discvalidationresearchreport2012_2bb9

Documents